000			01976naa a2200169uu 4500
001			7010517412221
003			OSt
005			20190211162130.0
008			070105s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aBEREJEKIAN, Jeffrey _929733
245	1	0	_aThe gains debate : _bframing state choice
260			_aNew York, NY : _bCambridge University Press, _cDecember 1997
520	3		_aState attempts to secure international cooperation are confined by the distribution of power across relevant actors, the constraints imposed by the international system, and the intentions and actions of other states. Recently, the theoretical discussion surrounding state intentions has left us with two distinct and competing models of state choice. Liberalism asserts that "the existence of international regimes composed of sovereign entities who voluntarily eschew independent decision making" evidences a world in which states maximize absolute gains (Stein 1983, 134). Realism counters that "the fundamental goal of states in any relationship is to prevent others from achieving advances in their relative capabilities" (Grieco 1988, 498). The resulting debate has "dominated much of international relations theory for the last decade," to the extent that it is now often "commonplace for an article about some aspect of international theory to begin by locating itself in terms of this debate" (Powell 1994, 313). This polarization into competing camps has also meant that "these two approaches and the debate between them have failed to contribute as much as they might have to international relations theory" (Powell 1994, 313).(1) Structured discussion between adherents of both sides has not resolved the matter. Indeed, if anything, it has become acrimonious.(2)
773	0	8	_tAmerican Political Science Review _g91, 4, p. 789-806 _dNew York, NY : Cambridge University Press, December 1997 _xISSN 0003-0554 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20070105 _b1741^b _cNatália
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c21283 _d21283
041			_aeng